 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Decision Point, Inc. v. Reece & Nichols Realtors, Inc., No. 95,543,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a real estate company was proper because agents' commissions constituted earnings under Kansas's Uniform Consumer Credit Code; thus, a lender advancing funds based on promised commissions could not enforce against the company an assignment of the commissions that was in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 16a-3-305(a).
|
|||||
| Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., No. 94,877,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court order denying class certification was reversed because the trial court failed to engage in a rigorous analysis of the certification factors in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-223 or make any findings of fact, as directed to do on remand; and the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law prevented meaningful appellate review.
|
|||||
| In re Brunton, No. 96,581,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1, 8.4(b), and 8.4(d) by failing to provide notice, failing to file income tax returns, and failing to amend a bankruptcy plan, he was ordered to comply with certain conditions as a disciplinary sanction because, inter alia, there was actual injury and there were mitigating factors.
|
|||||
| In re Eckelman, No. 96,580,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was publicly censured for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 3.5(c)-(d), 8.2(a) as she made false statements regarding the judge during trial, including repeatedly accusing the judge of speaking improperly with jurors. The lawyer's comments crossed the line of justified criticism and were made with reckless disregard of the truth.
|
|||||
| In re Sylvester, No. 95,963,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney failed to respond to a corrections request, resulting in the abandonment of a patent application, he violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), and 8.4(c) and was sanctioned with public censure because, inter alia, he failed to inform the client that the application had been abandoned and caused potential harm.
|
|||||
| State v. Alger, No. 93,587,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court refused to address the merits of defendant's claim that the district court erred by admitting into evidence an unredacted version of the videotape of defendant's third police interview because defendant failed to make a contemporaneous objection at trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Anthony, No. 92,362,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant confessed to first-degree premeditated murder during interrogation and never invoked his right to silence. Thus, prosecutor's use of detective's testimony that defendant only chose to discontinue interview after his admissions did not violate defendant's right to post-arrest silence under Fifth Amendment or Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 10.
|
|||||
| State v. Francis, No. 92,087,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, defendant rights under Brady were not violated by the State's failure to disclose that its witness had a disorder that might have caused him to confuse events because the witness's testimony was consistent during the police investigation, at the preliminary hearing, and at trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Garcia, No. 93,412,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's speedy trial right under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3402 was not violated because the murder victim DNA evidence was unavailable within the meaning of § 22-3402 where the cost of obtaining it from a private lab soon enough to avoid a continuance of the trial was prohibitive, which made the State's conduct in seeking a continuance reasonable.
|
|||||
| State v. Gary, No. 93,089,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of probation was improper when second offense was committed three days before sentencing hearing. Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3716, revocation could only occur when there had been violation of the terms of probation. In this case, there were no terms in place when defendant committed second offense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
